p 



IB 
75 



1917^ 






THE CHARACTER 

OF THE 

BRITISH EMPIRE 



BY 

RAMSAY MUIR 

PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY IN THE 
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER 



NEW YORK 
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 

Publishers in America for Hodder & Stoughton 



MCMXVII 



THE CHARACTER 

OF THE 

BRITISH EMPIRE 



BY 

RAMSAY MUIR 

PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY IN THE 
tJNIVERSITT OF MANCHESTER 



NEW YORK 
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS IN AMERICA FOR HODDER & STOUGHTON 
MCMXVII 






\ 



V\\ 



By Tranftfor 

MAY 6 1 ^9V9 



"V 
X 

X 



THE CHARACTER OF THE 
BRITISH EMPIRE 



Note. — The following essay is hased mainly upon a hook 
hy the same author entitled ''The Expansion of Europe," 
in which an attempt is made to estimate the part played by 
various nations in extending the civilisation of Europe over 
the whole world. A few references are therefore given to 
the fuller treatment of various aspects of the subject con- 
tained in the hook. 



NEARLY all the great self-governing nations of the 
world are now combined in a desperate struggle 
against the scarcely-veiled military despotism of the Cen- 
tral European Powers, and the object of the struggle has 
been well defined by President Wilson as the securing of 
freedom for democracy, so that it shall be safe from the 
threats of militarist and conquering empires. 

In the forefront of the group of States engaged in the 
defence of democracy stands the British Empire, the great- 
est dominion that has ever existed in history, which covers 
a quarter of the earth's surface, and in which a quarter of 
the earth's population is subject (at any rate, in form) to 
the rule of two small European islands. 

The very existence of this huge Empire seems to many 
people to stultify in some degree the cause for which the 
world's democracies are fighting. It seems, at first sight, to 
be simply the greatest example of that spirit of conquest 

1 



2 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

and of military dominion against which we are striving. 
This is the view taken by some neutrals. "Imperialism is 
the enemy," says one Swiss writer; "whatever form it 
takes, German or Russian, British or French, it is equally 
the foe of free government." The Germans themselves 
make great play with this notion. They describe the Brit- 
ish Empire as a vast, greedy tyranny, built up by fraud. 
They invite us to free the oppressed millions of India before 
we talk hypocritically about liberty. They assert that the 
naval supremacy of Britain is far more dangerous to the 
freedom of the world than the military power of Germany 
could ever be. Some people even in the allied countries 
are affected by doubts of this kind. The Russian Socialists, 
for whom imperialism has in the past meant nothing but a 
hideous repression of freedom, are ready to assume that 
the British Empire, because it is called an empire, must 
mean the same ugly things. And criticism of the same 
kind can sometimes be heard in France, in Italy, in the 
United States, and in Britain herself. 

Our purpose, in this short paper, is to examine the truth 
of these superficial impressions. But before we do so there 
are two preliminary observations worth making. 

The first is that men's minds are extraordinarily easily 
influenced by mere words. The word ' ' Empire ' ' suggests, 
to many, conquest and dominion over unwilling subjects. 
In so far as it does so, it begs the question. As we shall 
try to show, this word is really misapplied to the British 
realms. The character of their government and of the bond 
which holds them together would be much better expressed 
by a phrase which is now being widely used in Britain — ^the 
British Commonwealth of Natimis. Of course, that title 
also begs the question in a way. But the reader is asked, at 
the outset, to keep in his mind, while he reads, the question, 
"Is the title 'Empire,' or the title 'Commonwealth of Na- 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 3 

tions, ' the truer description of this extraordinary aggregate 
of lands and peoples ? ' ' 

The second preliminary observation which we shall make 
is, that there are certain outstanding features of the war 
which must have thrown a striking light upon the character 
of the British Empire. 

Over a million volunteer soldiers have come from the 
great self-governing Colonies of the British Empire with- 
out any compulsion being imposed upon them. The princes 
and peoples of India have vied with one another in their 
generous and spontaneous gifts to the cause, while Indian 
forces have fought gallantly in all parts of the world, and 
at the same time India has been almost denuded of British 
troops. That is not the sort of thing which happens when 
the masters of a tyrannical dominion find themselves fight- 
ing for their very life. Apart from the unhappy troubles 
in Ireland (which were the work of a small minority) and 
the rebellion in South Africa (which was promptly put 
down by the South African Dutch themselves), there has 
been no serious disturbance in all the vast realms of this 
Empire during the three years' strain of war. Even the 
most recently subdued of African tribes have shown no 
desire to seize this opportunity for throwing off "the for- 
eign yoke." On the contrary, they have sent touching 
gifts, and offers of aid, and expressions of good-will. It 
appears, then, that the subjects of this ''Empire" have, for 
the most part, no quarrel with its government, but are well 
content that it should survive. 

II 

The creation of the British Empire has been simply a 
part (though, perhaps, the greatest part) of that outpour- 
ing of the European peoples which has, during the last four 



4 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

centuries, brought the whole world under the influence of 
western civilisation. That is a great achievement, and it 
has brought in sight the establishment of a real world- 
order. It is merely foolish to condemn the ''lust of con- 
quest" which has driven the European peoples to subdue 
the rest of the world, though, of course, we ought to con- 
demn the cruelties and injustices by which it has sometimes 
been accompanied. But without it North and South Amer- 
ica, Australia, and South Africa would have remained des- 
erts, inhabited by scattered bands of savages. Without it 
India would have been sentenced to the eternal continuance 
of the sterile and fruitless wars between despotic conquer- 
ors which made up her history until the British power was 
established. "Without it the backward peoples of the earth 
would have stagnated for ever in the barbarism in which 
they have remained since the beginning. The "imperial- 
ism" of the European nations has brought great results to 
the world. It has made possible that unification of the 
political and economic interests of the whole globe which 
we see beginning to-day. It is one of the fine aspects of this 
grim and horrible war that it affects the interests of the 
whole world, and that the whole world knows this. 

The giant's part which has been played by Britain in 
the conquest of the world by Western civilisation, and the 
peculiar character of her work, have been due to two 
things — British institutions and the British Navy. 

It ought never to be forgotten that down to the nine- 
teenth century (that is, during all the earlier part of the 
process of European expansion) Britain was the only one 
of the greater European States which possessed self-gov- 
erning institutions. She has been, in truth (this is not a 
boast, but a mere statement of indisputable historical fact) , 
the inventor of political liberty on the scale of the great 
nation-state, as Greece was the inventor of political liberty 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 5 

on the scale of tlie little city-state. And wherever free in- 
stitutions exist to-day, they have been derived from Britain, 
either by inheritance, as in America and the self-governing 
British colonies, or by imitation, as in all other cases. 

When the outpouring of Europe into the rest of the 
world began, the British peoples alone had the habit and 
instinct of self-government in their very blood and bones. 
And the result was that, wherever they went, they carried 
self-government with them. Every colony of British set- 
tlers, from the very first, was endowed with self-governing 
institutions. No colony ever planted by any other nation 
ever obtained corresponding rights.* That is one of the 
outstanding features of British expansion. In the eight- 
eenth century, and even in the middle of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, Britain herself and the young nations that had sprung 
from her loins were almost the only free States existing in 
the world. It was because they were free that they throve 
so greatly. They expanded on their own account, they 
threw out fresh settlements into the empty lands wherein 
they were planted, often against the wish of the Mother 
Country. And this spontaneous growth of vigorous free 
communities has been one of the principal causes of the 
immense extension of the British Empire. 

Now one of the results of the universal existence of self- 
governing rights in British colonies was that the colonists 
were far more prompt to resent and resist any improper 
exercise of authority by the Mother Country than were the 
settlers in the colonies of other countries, which had no self- 
governing rights at all. It was this independent spirit, 
nurtured by self-government, which led to the revolt of the 
American colonies in 1775, and to the foundation of the 
United States as an independent nation. In that great con- 
troversy an immensely important question was raised, which 

*See "The Expansion of Europe," Chapters II. and III. 



6 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

was new to human history. It was the question whether 
unity could be combined with the highest degree of free- 
dom ; whether it was possible to create a sort of fellowship 
or brotherhood of free communities, in which each should 
be master of its own destinies, and yet all combine for com- 
mon interests. But the question (being so new) was not 
understood on either side of the Atlantic. Naturally, Brit- 
ain thought most of the need of maintaining unity; she 
thought it unfair that the whole burden of the common de- 
fence should fall upon her, and she committed many foolish 
blunders in trying to enforce her view. Equally naturally 
the colonists thought primarily of their own self-governing 
rights, which they very justly demanded should be in- 
creased rather than restricted. The result was the unhappy 
war, which broke up the only family of free peoples that 
had yet existed in the world, and caused a most unfortunate 
alienation between them, whereby the cause of liberty in 
the world was greatly weakened.* 

Britain learned many valuable lessons from the American 
Revolution. In the new empire which she began to build 
up as soon as the old one was lost, it might have been ex- 
pected that she would have fought shy of those principles of 
self-government which no other State had ever tried to 
apply in its over-sea dominions, and which seemed to have 
led (from the imperialistic point of view) to such disastrous 
results in America. But she did not do so; the habits of 
self-government were too deeply rooted in her sons to make 
it possible for her to deny them self-governing rights in 
their new homes. On the contrary, she learnt, during the 
nineteenth century, to welcome and facilitate every expan- 
sion of their freedom,! and she gradually felt her way 

* See ' ' The Expansion of Europe, ' ' Chapter IV., where this view 
of the American Revolution is developed. 

t See * * The Expansion of Europe, ' ' Chapter VI., where the * ' Trans- 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 7 

towards a means of realising a partnership of free peoples 
whereby freedom should be combined with unity. Its 
success (although it must still undergo much development) 
has been strikingly shown in the Great "War. 

Thus British institutions — the institutions of national 
self-government, which are peculiarly British in origin — 
have played a main part both in determining the character 
of the British Empire and in bringing about its wonderful 
expansion. The more the British Empire has grown the 
more freedom has been established on the face of the earth. 

The second great factor in the growth of the British Em- 
pire has been the power of the British Navy, which has been 
the greatest sea power of the world practically since the 
overthrow of the Spanish Armada in 1588. 

It is a striking fact that in all her history Britain has 
never possessed a large army, until the necessities of this 
war suddenly forced her (as they are now forcing America) 
to perform the miracle of calling her whole manhood from 
the pursuits of peace to arms, of training them, and of 
equipping them, all within two years. In 1775 it was the 
fact that she possessed only a tiny armed force (some 40,000 
men for the defence of all her dominions), which made it 
necessary for her, for example, to hire Hessian troops in a 
hurry for the purposes of the American War of Independ- 
ence. Is not this an astounding paradox, that the power 
which has acquired dominion over one-quarter of the earth 
has done it without ever possessing a large army? And 
does it not suggest that the process by which this empire 
was acquired must have been very different from the ordi- 
nary processes of military conquest? This is a paradox 
which those who speak of the British Empire as if it were a 
mere military dominion must somehow explain. 

formation of the British Empire" during the nineteenth century is 
analysed. 



8 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

But there has been the supreme British fleet. It has 
made the creation and preservation of the Empire possible 
by securing the free transit not merely of soldiers, but, far 
more important, of settlers, merchants, administrators, or- 
ganisers, and missionaries. Scattered as it is over all the 
seas of the world, the British Empire would undoubtedly be 
broken into fragments if the security of the ocean high- 
roads by which it is united were ever to be lost. But al- 
though the British Navy has made the growth of the Em- 
pire possible, and has held it together, it has not conquered 
it. A fleet cannot conquer great areas of land; it cannot 
hold masses of discontented subjects in an unwilling obe- 
dience ; it cannot threaten the freedom or independence of 
any land-power. It is strong only for defence, not for 
offence. 

There are two aspects of the work of the British Navy 
during the last three centuries which deserve to be noted, 
because they also help to indicate the character of the work 
done by the British Empire during this period. 

In the flrst place, the British naval power has never been 
used to threaten the freedom of any independent State. On 
the contrary, it has been employed time and again as the 
last bulwark of freedom against great military Powers 
which have threatened to overwhelm the freedom of their 
neighbours by mere brute strength. That was so in the six- 
teenth century, when Spain seemed to be within an ace of 
making herself the mistress of the world. It was so a hun- 
dred years later, when the highly-organised power of Louis 
XIV. threatened the liberties of Europe. It was so again, 
a century later, when Napoleon's might overshadowed the 
world. It is so once more to-day, when the German peril 
menaces the liberty of nations. During each of these des- 
perate crises the British Navy has seemed to neutrals to 
be interfering unduly with their trade, in so far as their 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 9 

trade helped the enemy. In this connection it is worth not- 
ing that it has been for two centuries the invariable rule of 
the British Navy that in no circumstances must a neutral 
vessel ever be sunk, and in no circumstances must the lives 
of non-combatants be sacrificed. But is it not reasonable to 
say that in each of these great wars the theoretic rights of 
neutral trade were justly subordinated to the struggle for 
the preservation of liberty ? In all the great crises of mod- 
ern European history, then, British naval power has been 
the ultimate bulwark of liberty. 

But how has this power been used in times of peace? 
The Spanish naval power, which preceded the British, en- 
forced for its people a monopoly of the use of all the oceans 
of the world except the North Atlantic. The Dutch naval 
power, which carried on an equal rivalry with the British 
during the seventeenth century, established a practical 
monopoly for Dutch trade in all the waters east of the 
Straits of Malacca. But the British naval power has never 
for a moment been used to restrict the free movement of 
the ships of all nations in times of peace in any of the seas 
of the world. This, again, is not a boast, but a plain state- 
ment of undeniable historical fact. The freedom of the 
seas in times of peace (which is much more important than 
the freedom of the seas in times of war) has only existed 
during the period of British naval supremacy, but it has 
existed so fuUy that we have got into the habit of taking it 
for granted, and of assuming, rather rashly, that it can 
never be impaired. Yf hat is more, it has been entirely dur- 
ing the period of British naval supremacy, and mainly by 
the work of the British fleet, that the remoter seas have 
been charted and that piracy has been brought to an end, 
and the perils of the sailor reduced to the natural perils of 
wind and wave. This also is a contribution to the freedom 
of the seas. 



10 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

Britisli institutions, the institutions of self-government, 
and the British Navy, which has at all times been a bulwark 
of liberty, and has never interfered in times of peace with 
the use of the seas by any nation — ^these have been the main 
explanations of the fabulous growth of the British Empire. 
We cannot here attempt to trace the story of this growth, 
but must be content to survey the completed structure and 
consider on what principles it is governed, 

III 

The vast realms of the British Empire fall naturally into 
three groups : the great self-governing dominions, Canada, 
Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland ; 
the lands of ancient civilisation, India and Egypt; and the 
wide protectorates (mainly in Africa, but also in Asia and 
the Pacific) which are inhabited by backward and primitive 
peoples. There are other regions also, such as the West In- 
dian Islands, or the military posts and calling stations like 
Gibraltar, Malta, and Aden, which do not fall into any of 
these three categories. But they are of relatively minor 
importance, and it will be convenient to concentrate our 
attention upon each of the three main groups in turn. 

Regarding the self-governing dominions, the intelligent 
reader scarcely needs to be told that they are to all intents 
and purposes entirely free States, which remain in associa- 
tion with the Mother Country only by their own free will. 
If they were to claim complete independence, there would 
certainly be no attempt made by Britain to force them to 
remain in partnership, though the breach would be a great 
sorrow to the Mother Country. They make their own laws ; 
they appoint all their own officials (except the Governors, 
who perform almost purely formal functions, corresponding 
to those performed by the King in the ' ' crowned republic ' ' 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 11 

of Britain) ; they levy their own taxes, and both may and 
do impose any duties they think fit upon imports from Brit- 
ain equally with those coming from other States. They 
pay not a farthing of tribute to the Mother Country. They 
are not even required to contribute to the cost of the Navy, 
which protects them all, though some of them make volun- 
tary contributions. The only restriction upon their politi- 
cal independence is that they do not pursue an independent 
foreign policy or maintain ambassadors or consuls of their 
own in foreign countries. The responsibility (and the total 
cost) of this function falls upon Britain. If Britain should 
be drawn into war, the great dominions are also technically 
at war, and if Britain were to pursue a warlike or aggres- 
sive policy, this would soon alienate some or all of these 
young democracies. But it is only by their own free will 
that they take any part in a war in which Britain is in- 
volved, and the Mother Country has neither the right nor 
the power to demand military aid from them. Yet we have 
seen what whole-hearted and generous aid they have all 
given. "Would it have been as great, or as valuable, if it 
had been compulsory? Gradually they are beginning, 
through their Prime Ministers or other representatives, to 
take a more and more effective part in the direction of the 
common policy of the Empire. The meetings of what was 
called the "Imperial "War Cabinet" in the spring of 1917 
marked a definite stage in this development, and incident- 
ally afforded a very striking proof of the elasticity and 
adaptability of the British system of government. It is 
certain that this method of co-operation will be carried still 
further in the future. 

Clearly, so far as concerns the great dominions, the Brit- 
ish Empire is far from being a military domination imposed 
by force. It is a voluntary partnership or brotherhood of 
free peoples, a Commonwealth of Nations. It is a won- 



12 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

derful achievement in the combination of unity and free- 
dom, an experiment in the unforced co-operation of free 
States such as has never before been seen in human history. 
If that is the meaning of Imperialism, who will cavil at it ? 
Only one series of events has prevented a large part of 
the world from realising that this was the spirit in which 
the British Empire was governed. The South African "War 
made Britain appear, in the eyes of most of the world, a 
vast, greedy, tyrannical power, which, not content with an 
already immense dominion, must fall upon and devour two 
tiny, free republics, merely because they contained gold! 
But the world did not appreciate the real meaning of the 
South African War.* In the British South African col- 
onies (the Cape and Natal) the fullest equality of political 
rights was enjoyed by Dutch and British residents alike, 
and their institutions were the same as those of other Brit- 
ish dominions. But in the semi-independent Dutch repub- 
lics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State (especially 
the former) no such equality of rights existed. The ideal 
they aimed at was that of Dutch predominance, and some 
of their leaders hoped in time to drive the British out of 
Africa, and to establish there an exclusively Dutch suprem- 
acy. This did not matter so long as the inhabitants of these 
lands were only a few Dutch farmers. But when the dis- 
covery of gold and diamonds brought an immense inrush of 
British and other settlers, who henceforth produced nearly 
all the wealth of the country, this denial of equality of 
rights became serious, and the programme of Dutch con- 
quest, prepared for mainly at the cost of the new settlers, 
began to seem dangerous. This was the real cause of the 
South African "War. It might, perhaps, have been avoided, 
and, if so, those who precipitated it unnecessarily were 

* See ' ' The Expansion of Europe, ' ' Chapters VI. and VIII., for an 
analysis of British policy in South Africa. 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 13 

much to blame, whether they were Boers or Britons. There 
were faults on both sides. But essentially the war was, on 
Britain's side, a war for equality of rights. What were its 
results ? So far as Britain was concerned, the bones of thou- 
sands of her sons lay on the African veldt, and her public 
debt was vastly increased. She made no direct material 
gains of any sort: the gold-mines remained in exactly the 
same hands as before. But so far as South Africa was 
concerned, the result was that in a very few years the con- 
quered republics were given full self-governing powers, on 
the basis of equal rights for both races, and a few years 
later they and the older British colonies combined in the 
Union of South Africa, a great, free, federal state, in whose 
affairs Dutch and British have equal rights, aiid in which 
a new nation, formed by the blending of the two races, can 
grow up. That was what British imperialism led to in 
South Africa. 

And now observe the sequel. When the great war began 
(scarcely more than a dozen years from the time when 
Dutch and Britons were fighting bitterly) the Germans 
tried to bring about a revolt among the more ignorant 
Dutch. It was put down by the forces of the Union, 
mainly Dutch, led by Louis Botha, who had once been the 
commander-in-chief of the Transvaal army, and was now 
the prime minister of a self-governing dominion within 
the British Empire. And then, still led by Botha, a com- 
bined force of Dutch and Britons proceeded to the con- 
quest of German South- West Africa, suffering casualties 
which, by a happy chance, were exactly equally divided be- 
tween the two races. And then a South African contin- 
gent was sent to Bast Africa, and the supreme command 
over them, and over British regulars and Indian regiments 
and native levies, was assumed by the Dutch General 
Smuts, once a formidable leader against the British. And, 



14 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

lastly, General Smuts came to England to join in the delib- 
erations of the Imperial War Cabinet, and to make speeches 
of profound foresight and political wisdom to the British 
people, in which he sang the praises of the British Common- 
wealth of free nations as something that deserved every sac- 
rifice from the peoples enrolled under its sheltering eegis. 

Is there any parallel to these events in the history of the 
world? And is the Empire whose spirit leads to such re- 
sults to be spoken of as if it were a mere, ruthless military 
dominion ? 

IV 

The second great group of British dominions consists of 
those ancient and populous lands, notably India and Egypt, 
which, though they have been able to develop remarkable 
civilisations, have never in all their history succeeded in 
establishing the rule of a just and equal law, or known any 
form of government save arbitrary despotism. 

It is impossible to trace here, even in the baldest out- 
line, the steps by which Britain acquired the sovereignty 
over India and Egypt.* They form two of the most curi- 
ous and romantic episodes in history, for the strange thing 
is that in both cases British intervention was begun with no 
thought of conquest, and in both cases the responsibility 
of political control was assumed by Britain with very great 
reluctance. This may sound incredible, but it is an indis- 
putable historical fact. We must content ourselves with a 
very brief analysis of the character and results of the Brit- 
ish dominion. 

What, then, has the establishment of British power meant 

in India? Until the British power was established, India 

had in all her long history never known political unity. 

She had seen nothing but an almost uninterrupted sucees- 

*India is dealt with in Chapterg III., IV., VI., and Egypt in Chap- 
ter VIII. of ' ' The Expansion of Europe. ' ' 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 15 

sion of wars, an endless series of conquests and evanescent 
dominions. Always Might had been Right ; Law had rep- 
resented only the will of the master, and the law courts 
only the instruments of his arbitrary authority, so that the 
lover of righteousness could only pursue it by cutting him- 
self off from all the ties of society and living the life of 
the ascetic. India was the most deeply divided land in 
the world — divided not only by differences of race and 
tongue (there are 38 distinct languages in India to-day, and 
some of them differ more widely than Russian and Span- 
ish), but divided still more deeply by bitter conflicts of 
creed and, most sharply of all, by the unchanging, imper- 
meable barriers of caste, which had arisen in the first in- 
stance from the determination of conquering peoples to 
keep themselves free from any intermixture with their sub- 
jects. Nowhere in the world are there to be seen, cheek by 
jowl, such profound contrasts between distinct grades of 
civilisation as are represented by the difference between 
(say) the almost savage Bhils or the out-caste sweepers, and 
the high-bred Brahmin, Rajput or Mahomedan chiefs. One 
result of these time-worn distinctions is that through all 
the ages the ruling castes and races have been accustomed 
to expect, and the mass of humble men to offer, the most 
abject submission ; so that British administrators have often 
had to complain that the chief difficulty was, not to make 
laws for the protection of the humble, but rather to per- 
suade those for whose benefit they were made to take advan- 
tage of them. 

To this divided land the British rule has brought three 
inestimable boons: a firmly organised political unity; the 
impartial administration of a just and equal system of law, 
based on a codification of Indian usages; and the mainte- 
nance of a long, unbroken peace. To this may be added 
the introduction not only of the material boons of western 



16 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

civilisation — railways, roads, irrigation, postal facilities, 
and so forth — ^but of western learning. This has had to be 
conveyed through the vehicle of English, because it was im- 
possible to create, in all the 38 vernaculars, a whole litera- 
ture of modern knowledge. And the consequence is, that 
all the members of the large and growing class of Univer- 
sity-trained students, whose existence for the first time cre- 
ates an instructed public opinion in India, are able freely 
to communicate with one another, and to share a common 
body of ideas, to an extent that has never before been possi- 
ble in all the earlier history of India. Out of all these 
causes, due to the British rule, there has begun to arise in 
this deeply divided land a sentiment of national unity, and 
an aspiration after self-government. This sentiment and 
this aspiration are in themselves excellent things ; their dan- 
ger is that they may lead to a demand for a too rapid ad- 
vance. For national unity cannot be created by merely 
asserting that it exists. It will not be fully established 
until the deeply-rooted differences which are only begin- 
ning to be obliterated have largely ceased to determine 
men's thoughts and actions, as they still do in India. And 
self-government, on the amplest scale of modern democracy, 
cannot be achieved until the traditionally ascendant classes, 
and the traditionally subject classes, have alike learned to 
recognise the equality of their rights before the law. But 
the foundations have been made of advance towards both 
of these aims ; they are the result of British rule. 

There are discontents in India ; there is much sharp criti- 
cism of the methods of the supreme Government, especially 
— almost exclusively — among the new class of western- 
educated men. But the criticism has not gone so far, ex- 
cept with a very few fanatics, as to assert that British rule 
is itself unjust or evil ; on the contrary, all the best opinion 
in India desires to see that great land steadily progressing 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 17 

towards greater national unity and greater political liberty 
under the guidance and protection of British rule ; all the 
best opinion in India recognises that the progress already 
made has been due to British rule, and that ixs continuance 
depends upon the continuance of British rule ; all the best 
opinion in India desires that India, even when she becomes, 
as she will steadily become, more fully self-governing, 
should remain a partner in the British Commonwealth of 
Nations. It was a real satisfaction of one of the aspirations 
of India when three representatives of the Indian Gov- 
ernment, an Indian prince, an Indian lawyer, and an 
Anglo-Indian administrator, came to London in the spring 
of 1917 to take part in the councils of the Empire during 
the crisis of its destiny. Criticism and discontent exist. 
But their existence is a sign of life ; and the freedom with 
which they are expressed is a proof that the Government 
of India does not follow a merely repressive policy, and 
that the peoples of India have at last been helped to escape, 
in a large degree, from that complete docility and submis- 
siveness which are the unhappy signs that a people is en- 
slaved body and soul. 

India does not pay one penny of tribute to Britain. She 
pays the cost of the small, efficient army which guards her 
frontiers, but if any part of it is borrowed for service else- 
where, the cost falls upon the British Treasury. This rule 
was, indeed, broken in regard to the first Indian contingents 
in the present war, but only at the request of the Indian 
members of the Viceroy's Legislative Council, India con- 
tributes not a penny towards the upkeep of the British 
fleetj which guards her shores ; nor does she defray any part 
of the cost of the consuls and ambassadors in all parts of the 
world who protect the interests of her travelling citizens. 
She is a self-dependent state, all of whose resources are ex- 
pended on the development of her own prosperity, and ex- 



18 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

pended with the most scrupulous honesty and economy. 
Her ports are open, of course, to British traders, but they 
are open on precisely the same terms to the traders of all 
other countries ; there is no special privilege for the British 
merchant. Recently she has entered upon a policy of fiscal 
protection, with a view to the development of cotton manu- 
factures. This policy was directed primarily against Lan- 
cashire. But because Indian opinion demanded it, it has 
not been resisted, in spite of the fact that the bulk of Brit- 
ish opinion holds such a policy to be economically unsound. 
Nor have British citizens any special privileges in other 
respects. It was laid down as long ago as 1833, as an " in- 
disputable principle," that "the interests of the native 
subjects are to be consulted in preference to those of Euro- 
peans, wherever the two come in competition." Where will 
you find a parallel to that statement of policy by the su- 
preme government of a ruling race? 

India, in short, is governed, under the terms of a code 
of law based upon Indian custom, by a small number of 
picked British officials, only about 3,000 in all, among whom 
highly-trained Indians are increasingly taking their place, 
and who work in detail through an army of minor officials, 
nearly all Indians, and selected without respect to race, 
caste, or creed. She is a self-contained country, whose re- 
sources are devoted to her own needs. She is prospering 
to a degree unexampled in history. She has achieved a 
political unity never before known to her. She has been 
given the supreme gift of a just and impartial law, admin- 
istered without fear or favour. She has enjoyed a long 
period of peace, unbroken by any attack from external 
foes. Here, as fully as in the self-governing Colonies, 
membership of the British Empire does not mean subjection 
to the selfish dominion of a master, or the subordination 
to that master's interests of the vital interests of the com- 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 19 

munity. It means the establishment among a vast popula- 
tion of the essential gifts of western civilisation — rational 
law, and the liberty which exists under its shelter. 

What has been said of India might equally be said of 
Egypt, mutatis mutandis, but space does not permit of any 
detail on this theme. Enough to say that the achievements 
of the short period since 1882, when the British occupation 
began, in the rescuing of the country from bankruptcy, in 
the abolition of the hideous tyranny under which the mass 
of the peasantry had long groaned, in the development of 
the natural resources of the country, in the introduction of 
western methods of government and education, in the re- 
moval of the peril of returning barbarism which threatened 
from the Soudan, and in the establishment of a just and 
equal system of law, is something which it would be hard 
to match in the records of history.* 

Both in India and in Egypt lands of ancient civilisation 
have been rescued from a state of chaos and set upon the 
path which leads to unity and freedom. And in both coun- 
tries, if the kind of political liberty which consists in the 
universal diffusion of a share in the control of government 
has not yet been established, it is because the peoples of 
these countries are not yet ready for that, and because the 
premature establishment of it, by enthroning afresh the old 
ruling castes, would endanger the far more real gifts of 
liberty which have been secured — ^liberty of thought and 
speech, liberty to enjoy the fruits of a man's own labour, 
freedom from subjection to merely arbitrary superiors, and 
the establishment of the elementary rights of the poor as 
securely as those of the powerful. 

Empires, like men, are to be judged by their fruits. 

* The causes of the British occupation of Egypt, and the develop- 
ment of Egypt under British control, are discussed in "The Expan- 
sion of Europe, ' ' Chapter VIII. 



20 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 



Lastly, we come to the vast regions inhabited wholly or 
mainly by backward or primitive peoples. Most of these 
are territories of comparatively recent acquisition. And it 
is here, and practically here alone, that the British Empire 
comes into comparison with the recently created empires of 
other European states, France, Germany, Italy and Bel- 
gium ; none of which possess any self-governing colonies, or 
any extensive lands of ancient civilisation like India, unless 
the French colonies of Algeria and Annam are to be re- 
garded as falling within the latter category. 

The establishment of European control over most of the 
backward regions of the world has been, for the most part, 
a very recent and a very rapid development.* 

The rush for extra-European territory which has taken 
place since 1878 is frequently regarded as a merely sordid 
exhibition of greed and of the lust for power ; and indeed, 
some features of it deserve condemnation. But it ought to 
be recognised that this huge movement was, in the main, 
both necessary and beneficial. It was necessary because 
modern scientific industry needed the raw materials pro- 
duced in these lands, and the primitive savagery of their 
occupants could not permanently stand in the way of the 
triumphant march of material progress. And it was (or 
was capable of being made) highly advantageous, not only 
to the industrial world, but to the backward peoples them- 
selves, who, apart from it, might never have emerged from 
the unchanging barbarism in which they have mostly rested 
since the beginning of time. Whether that was to be so or 
not, depended, of course, upon the spirit in which the task 
was undertaken. We have seen some hideous examples of 

* On these events see * ' The Expansion of Europe, ' ' Chapter VII. 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 21 

depraved cruelty in the treatment of backward peoples, as 
in Leopold of Saxe-Coburg's administration of the Congo 
(which, improved beyond recognition as soon as it was taken 
over by the Belgian Parliament), or as in the ruthless Ger- 
man slaughter of the Hereros in South-West Africa. But 
on the whole, and with exceptions, the establishment of 
European control has been as beneficial to its primitive sub- 
jects as it has been advantageous to the development of 
modern industry. 

In spite of the vast extent of her Empire in other regions^ 
Britain has taken a far larger share of this work than any 
other single power ; perhaps, all things considered, she has 
taken as great a share as all the rest put together. "What 
are the reasons for this ? 

The first reason is that Britain had begun long before any 
of the other powers. Both in Africa and in the islands of 
the Pacific, the work of exploration was mainly done by 
British travellers; British traders had almost alone been 
known to the native populations ; and British missionaries, 
who were extraordinarily active during the nineteenth cen- 
tury, had planted themselves everywhere, and played an 
immensely important part in civilising their simple flocks. 
Wherever the missionary went, he undertook the defence of 
the primitive peoples to whom he preached, against the 
sometimes unscrupulous exploitation of the trader. It was 
the constant cry of the missionaries that the British Gov- 
ernment ought to assume control, in order to keep the trad- 
ers in order. They, and the powerful religious bodies at 
home which supported them, did much to establish the prin- 
ciple that it was the duty of government to protect the 
rights of native races, while at the same time putting an 
end to such barbarous usages as cannibalism, slavery, and 
human sacrifice, where they survived. Often, too, native 
chieftains begged to be taken under British protection; 



22 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

while the better type of traders were anxious to see civilised 
administration set up, because it is only under civilised 
administration that trade can permanently thrive. Thus 
the British Government was under continual pressure from 
all sides, while the governments of other European coun- 
tries as yet took no interest in colonial questions. The Brit- 
ish Government was extremely loth to assume additional 
responsibilities, and did its best to avoid them. But some 
annexations it could not avoid. 

Thus before the great European rush for colonies began, 
Britain, and Britain alone, had acquired a very wide experi- 
ence in the government of backward peoples, and had 
worked out fairly clearly defined principles for the govern- 
ment of such peoples. "What is more, in all the regions of 
this type which she controlled — ^indeed, throughout her 
whole Empire, everywhere save in the self-g'ovewiing Col- 
onies — it had become the practice of Britain tp throw open 
all her ports and markets to the trade of all nations on 
exactly the same terms as to her own merchants. She is, 
in fact, the only great colonising Power which has adopted 
this principle. If a British merchant goes to the Philip- 
pines, or to Madagascar, or to Togoland, he finds that he 
has to compete with his American, French, or German rival 
on unequal terms, because a tariff discriminates between the 
citizen of the ruling people and the foreign trader. But 
if an American, French, or German merchant goes to India, 
or to any British Crown Colony or protectorate, he is ad- 
mitted on exactly the same terms as the Briton. That dis- 
tinction had already been established before 1878, though 
it has been accentuated since that date. 

The British method of administering backward regions 
as worked out before 1878 was therefore based upon two 
principles, first the protection of native rights, and secondly 
the open door to all trading nations ; and Britain may fairly 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 23 

be said to have learnt to regard herself as being, in these 
regions, a trustee — a trustee on behalf of her subjects, and 
on behalf of the civilised world. Is it not true that if these 
principles had been universally adopted, half the bitter- 
ness which has been due to the rivalry of the European 
Powers for colonial possessions would have been obviated ? 
To-day these principles are being advocated by many ear- 
nest men as representing the only mode by which the su- 
premacy of western civilisation throughout the world can 
be reconciled with the avoidance of bitter rivalry and war 
between the civilised states; and they are preached as if 
they were a new doctrine of salvation. Yet they have been 
consistently practised by Britain during the greater part of 
the nineteenth century, and they are still practised by her 
to-day. 

When the great rush began, the main object of the Euro- 
pean states which took part in it was to obtain a monopoly- 
control of the regions which they annexed. But in all the 
available regions of the world, British trade had hitherto 
been preponderant. British traders saw before them the 
prospect of being absolutely excluded from lines of traffic 
which had hitherto been mainly in their hands, and they 
were naturally urgent that the only means of protection 
available should be taken, and that the areas in which they 
had been most active should be brought under British ad- 
ministration. If the new colonising Powers had been pre- 
pared to follow the policy of the open door, to which Brit- 
ain had so long adhered, there would have been no reason to 
fear their annexations ; rather there would have been every 
reason to rejoice that other nations were taking their share 
in the work of giving civilised government to these regions. 
But since their object was monopoly and exclusion, it was 
inevitable that Britain should undertake great new respon- 
sibilities. Her doing so was, indeed, the only practicable 



24 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

way of preserving the trading rights, not merely of her own 
subjects, but also of all the other trading Powers which 
had not themselves joined in the rush, or had only a small 
part in it. Yet even now the British Government was ex- 
tremely unwilling to take action, or to expand still further 
the already vast domains for whose good governance it was 
responsible. It had to be forced into action, mainly 
through the activity of trading companies. 

In the vast new acquisitions of the period since 1878 
(which were mainly in Africa), as in the earlier acquisi- 
tions, the old principles long pursued by Britain in the 
government of these backward regions were still maintained 
— protection of native rights and the open door. And thus 
it has come about that to-day these British realms present 
almost the only undeveloped fields to which all nations may 
resort on equal terms and in whose development all may 
take a share. The Germans have made a very large use 
of these opportunities. 

Another point ought to be made. Immense as these re- 
gions are, and recently as they have been turned from bar- 
barism, order and peace are maintained within them by 
extraordinarily small military forces : only the absolute nec- 
essary minimum. Yet they have been on the whole extraor- 
dinarily free from unrest or rebellion, such as has repeat- 
edly disturbed the German colonies in Africa. There has 
been in their history no episode like the ruthless slaughter 
of the whole Herero race in German South- West Africa, 
after long, desperate, dragging campaigns. And while it 
would be absurd to claim that no abuses of the power of 
the white man over his coloured subjects have been known 
in them, at least there have been no outstanding or notori- 
ous atrocities. Their subjects are loyal, and are reconciled 
to peace, because they recognise that they are justly treated. 
That, it may fairly be claimed, is what the British Empire 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 25 

has meant in the backward regions of the earth. And if it 
be true that the institution of civilised government in these 
regions was necessary in the interests at once of modern 
industry and of the backward peoples themselves, it is 
equally true that there are no other backward regions in 
which the interests of the native subjects have been more 
solicitously considered, and none in which the interests of 
all the industrial nations, and not merely of a single dom- 
inant race, have been so steadily held in view, as in these 
regions of the British Empire. 

VI 

If we now turn to consider as a whole the character of 
this vast Empire,* whose principal regions we have been 
examining, the first thing that must strike us is that, while 
it is by far the biggest of all the world-dominions which 
have come into existence in modern times, it is also the most 
loosely organised of them all. It is rather a partnership of 
a multitude of states in every grade of civilisation and 
every stage of development than an organised and consoli- 
dated dominion. Five of its chief members are completely 
self-governing, and share in the common burdens only by 
their own free will. All the remaining members are or- 
ganised as distinct units, though subject to the general con- 
trol of the home government. The resources of each unit 
are employed exclusively for the development of its own 
welfare. They pay no tribute; they are not required to 
provide any soldiers beyond the minimum necessary for 
their own defence and the maintenance of internal order. 

This Empire, in short, is not in any degree organised for 
military purposes. It is strong for defence so long as it is 

* The passages in this section are mainly quoted directly from * ' Tke 
Expansion of Europe.^' 



26 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

sure of the command of the sea, since it is open to attack at 
singularly few points by land. But it is incapable, by its 
very nature and system of organisation, of threatening the 
existence of any of its rivals or of making a bid for world- 
supremacy. For, vast though its population and resources 
are, they cannot be made available for war except under 
the impulse of a great enthusiasm simultaneously dominat- 
ing all its members, like that which has led them all to share 
in this war ; and if its directors were to undertake an ag- 
gressive and conquering policy, not only could they not 
count upon general support, but they would probably bring 
about the disruption of the Empire. 

The life-blood of this Empire is trade ; its supreme inter- 
est is manifestly peace. The conception of the meaning of 
empire which is indicated by its history is not a conception 
of dominion for dominion's sake, imposed by brute force. 
On the contrary, it has come to be regarded as a trust, a 
trust to be administered in the interests of the subjects 
primarily, and secondarily in the interests of the whole civ- 
ilized world. That this is not the assertion of a boast or of 
an unrealised ideal, but of a fact and a practice, is suffi- 
ciently demonstrated by two unquestionable facts, to which 
we have already referred, but which cannot be too often 
repeated. The first is the fact that the units of this empire 
are not only free from all tribute in money or men, but are 
not even required to make any contribution to the upkeep 
of the fleet, upon which the safety of all depends. The 
second is the fact that every port and every market in this 
vast empire, so far as they are under the control of the 
central government, are thrown open as freely to the citi- 
zens of all other States as to its own. 

Finally, in this empire there has never been any attempt 
to impose a uniformity of method or even of laws upon the 
infinitely various societies which it embraces; it not only 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 27 

permits, it cultivates and admires, varieties of type, and to 
the maximum practical degree it believes in self-govern- 
ment. It includes among its population representatives of 
almost every human race and religion, from the Australian 
Bushman to the subtle and philosophic Brahmin, from the 
African dwarf to the master of modern industry or the 
scholar of universities. Almost every form of social organ- 
isation known to man is represented in its complex and 
many-hued fabric. It embodies some of the most demo- 
cratic communities which the world has known. It finds 
place for the highly organised caste system by which the 
teeming millions of India are held together. It preserves 
the simple tribal organisation of the African elans. To 
different elements among its subjects this empire appears in 
different aspects. To the self-governing dominions it is a 
brotherhood of free nations, co-operating for the defence 
and diffusion of the ideas and institutions of freedom. To 
the ancient civilisations of India or Egypt it is a power 
which, in spite of all its mistakes and limitations, has 
brought peace instead of turmoil, law instead of arbitrary 
might, unity instead of chaos, justice instead of oppression, 
freedom for the development of the capacities and charac- 
teristic ideas of their peoples, and the prospect of a steady 
growth of national unity and political responsibility. To the 
backward races it has meant the suppression of unending 
slaughter, the disappearance of slavery, the protection of 
the rights and usages of primitive and simple folk against 
reckless exploitation, and the chance of gradual improve- 
ment and emancipation from barbarism. But to all alike, 
to one-quarter of the inhabitants of the globe, it has meant 
the establishment of the Reign of Law and of the Liberty 
which can only exist under its shelter. In some degree, 
though imperfectly as yet, it has realised within its own 
body all the three great political ideals of the modern world. 



28 CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 

It has fostered the rise of a sense of nationality in the 
young communities of the new lands, and in the old and 
once decaying civilisations of the most ancient historic 
countries. It has given a freedom of development to self- 
government in a variety of forms, to which there is no sort 
of parallel in any other empire that has ever existed. And 
by linking together so many diverse and contrasted peoples 
in a common peace it has already realised, for a quarter of 
the globe, the ideal of internationalism on a scale undreamt 
of by the most sanguine prophets of Europe. 

Long ago, in the crisis of the American Revolution, when 
the faithfulness of Britain to her tradition of liberty was 
for an unhappy moment wavering in the balance, the great 
orator Burke spoke some glowing sentences on the character 
of the British Empire as he conceived it. They read like 
a prophetic vision of the Empire of to-day, linked by ties 
which, in his words, "though light as air, are strong as 
links of iron," yet joining in an heroic comradeship to de- 
fend the threatened shrine of freedom. "As long as you 
have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this 
country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple con- 
secrated to our common faith, wherever the sons of Eng- 
land worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards 
you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will 
have ; the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect 
will be their obedience. Slavery they can have anywhere. 
It is a weed that grows in every soil. They may have it 
from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But freedom 
they can have only from you. This is the commodity of 
price, of which you have the monopoly. Deny them this 
participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond, 
which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of 
the Empire. Do not dream that your letters of office, 
and your instructions, and your suspending clauses, are 



CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 29 

the things that hold together the great contexture of the 
mysterious whole. These things do not make your govern- 
ment. Dead instruments, passive tools as they are, it is 
the spirit of the English Constitution that gives all their 
life and efficacy to them. It is the spirit of the English 
Constitution which, infused through the mighty mass, per- 
vades, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies every part of the 
Empire, even down to the minutest member. ' ' 

The spirit of Burke was wounded in 1775 ; it is rejoicing 
to-day. 



Book s To Be Read Now 

THE BATTLE OF THE SOIWiWE By John Buchan 

"Mr. Buchan's account is a clear and brilliant presentation of the whole vast 
manoeuver and its tactical and strategic development through all four stages." — 
Springfield Republican. Illustrated. 12mo. Net $1^ 

THE CERIWAN FURY IN BELGIUM ByL.Mokoeid 

"Some of the most brilliant reporting of all times was done by a few quiet indi- 
viduals. . . . Among the men who did the most brilliant work, Mokveld of the 
Amsterdam Tijd stands foremost." — Dr. WUlem Hendrik Van Loon. 

12mo. Net. $1.00 

THE CERIWAN TERROR IM BELCIUIW By Arnold J, Toynbee 

"From the facts he places before his readers, it appears conclusive that the horrors 
were perpetrated systematically, deliberately, under orders, upon a people whose 
country was invaded without just cause. — Philadelphia Public Ledger. 

8vo. Net $1.00 

THE LAND of PEEPENJNQ SHADOW; Jf HIKft?^- ByD. Thomas Curtin 

Revealing the Germany of fact in place of the Germany of tradition; telling the 
truth about Germany-in-the-third-yeax-of-the-war. 12mo. Net $1.50 

I ACCUSE! (J'ACCUSE!) By A German 

An arraignment of Germany by a German of the German War Party. Facts every 
neutral should know. 12mo. Net $1^0 

THE RED CROSS IN FRANCE By Granville Barker 

The popular playwright-author at his best; delightfully introduced by the Hon. 
Joseph A. Choate. 12mo. Net $1.00 

SOULS IN KHAKI By Arthur E. Copping 

(With a foreword by General Bramwell Booth.) A personal investigation into 
the spiritual experiences and sources of heroism among the lads on the firing line. 

12mo. Net $1.00 

BETWEEN ST, DENNIS AND ST, GEORGE ByFordMadoxHueffer 

A discussion of Germany's responsibility and France's great mission— with the 
**respects" of the author to George Bernard Shaw. 12mo. Net $1.00 

ONE YOUNG IWAN Edited by J. E. Hodder William* 

The experiences of a young clerk who enlisted in 1914, fought for nearly two 
years, was severely wounded, and is now on his way back to his desk. 

12mo. Net $0.75 
WHEN BLOOD IS THEIR ARGUMENT ByFordMadoxHueffer 

This nowerful. deep-probing escposition of German ideals is by an accepted 
authority. 12mo. Net $1.00 

GERMAN BARBARISM ByLeonMacca* 

A detailed picture of the German atrocities — ^indisputable and amazing — ^based en- 
tirely on documentary evidence. By a neutral. 12mo. Net $1.00 

COLLECTED DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS 

The original diplomatic papers of the various European nations at the outbreak 
of the war. Quarto. Net $1.00 

THE ROAD TO LIEGE By M. Gustave Somville 

The work of the German "destruction squads" just over the German frontier. 
(From German evidence.) 12mo. Net $1.00 

MY HOME IN THE FIELD OF HONOUR By Frances Wilson Huard 

The simple, intimate, classic narrative which has taken rank as one of the few 
distinguished books produced since the outbreak of the war. 

^ Illustrated. 12mo. Net $1.35 

GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY Publishers New York 

Publisher* in America for HODDER &STOUGHTON 




ij LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




021 427 498 A 



